ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council - 26 April 2005 20 / 13
1 & 1A Lamond Drive, 1444 &
1444A Pacific Highway,
Turramurra
Item 20
DA1099/04
13 April 2005
the interconnecting canopy that typifies the locality and as the consulting arborist states “ the
retention <strong>of</strong> the these trees (including #427) allows them as components <strong>of</strong> the current curtilage <strong>to</strong>
<strong>be</strong> transferred <strong>to</strong> the new dwellings, maintaining elements <strong>of</strong> a continuous landscape, providing a
more harmonious integration and transition <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> the land”. It is required that tree #427 <strong>be</strong>
retained. This can <strong>be</strong> achieved by increasing the front setback <strong>to</strong> the site (see comments) which in
turn will increase the setback from the tree enabling its retention.
Arborist’s Report
A detailed arborist’s report has <strong>be</strong>en submitted with the application. It is noted however that the
arborist has given some existing trees in excellent health a low SULE rating due <strong>to</strong> their location
with regards <strong>to</strong> the proposed development. This is incorrect. A SULE rating should relate directly
<strong>to</strong> the tree health and Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) at the time <strong>of</strong> inspection, rather than
what may or may not <strong>be</strong> developed on the site. As such the SULE rating given for some identified
trees on site is incorrect. It should also <strong>be</strong> noted that some trees have <strong>be</strong>en misidentified eg #432
Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) has <strong>be</strong>en misidentified and is actually a Eucalyptus saligna
(Bluegum). Other Bluegums on site have <strong>be</strong>en similarly misidentified.
The arborist’s report has failed <strong>to</strong> mention that the site area was part <strong>of</strong> an extensively damaged
area due <strong>to</strong> a large s<strong>to</strong>rm in 1991. As a result many <strong>of</strong> the trees were ‘<strong>to</strong>pped’ and the resultant
epicormic growth now 14 years on is quite extensive, but also structurally weakened due <strong>to</strong> poor
attachment <strong>of</strong> branches . Some <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> removed are a result <strong>of</strong> this s<strong>to</strong>rm damage and the compromise
<strong>to</strong> their structural integrity. The arborist has failed <strong>to</strong> mention this in his detailed observations <strong>of</strong>
existing trees.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plans submitted with the application consist <strong>of</strong> a generic master plan and a planting
plan. Neither plan provides sufficient detail with regard <strong>to</strong> the proposed landscape works. The
overall landscape philosophy can <strong>be</strong> supported but further detail is required, particularly with
regard <strong>to</strong> existing and proposed levels, specifications for structures proposed, existing trees <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong>
retained and/or removed, paving and the location <strong>of</strong> the proposed 2.0m high sound attenuation
fence/wall mentioned in the landscape statement.
The landscape plan should <strong>be</strong> a ‘stand alone’ document that details everything with regard <strong>to</strong>
landscape works. It is noted on the landscape master plan that level details etc are on other plans,
but without these plans adequate assessment or construction cannot take place.
A detailed landscape plan with details and specifications, levels (existing and proposed), tree
identification and the proposed front wall is required.
Courtyards
It is noted that the proposed development will result in ‘private’ courtyards <strong>be</strong>ing located forward
<strong>of</strong> the development within the two street frontages. The courtyards, particularly along the Pacific
N:\050426-OMC-PR-03122-1 1A LAMOND DRIVE 1444.doc/cswanepoel/13